Curt Doolittle

Theme: Religion

  • Combining Politics and Religion

    —“Politics and religion are different and are extremely hard to mix together”—James Portocarrero Judaism and islam do it. The church was too weak to do it. Chinese never had the problem. WHY: homogeneity = reason. Heterogeneity = Religion. THAT’S THE REASON The problem is heterogeneity (diversity). Religion = Stagnation to create homogeneity that doesn’t exist. Law = Adaptation to change in homogeneity that does exist. REALLY. THAT’S IT. There is a reason for ‘demand’ for religion There is a reason for ‘demand’ for socialization.

  • —“Religion causes war!”– (nope)

    by Bill Anderson You have the causality backwards. Males form tribes so that they can control a breeding population of women. Males who fail to do so will be conquered and their genes displaced, so violent conflict is unavoidable. These breeding populations will produce survival behaviors based on their genetic inclinations and their environment. These behaviors will be prioritized, or valued differently in each population, thus distinct value systems emerge (say monogamy vs polygamy for example). These distinct survival strategies are often incommensurate, and thus conflict is the result of their proximity. Some values are the result of “black swan events” which cannot be predicted or are multi generational processes which have catastrophic results. Pre-literate peoples communicated these lessons via myth, and sacralized (made static) those values as God given commandments. So, religions don’t cause war, competing survival strategies cause war. Religion is the result of a value system (survival strategy), not the cause of it.

  • —“Religion causes war!”– (nope)

    by Bill Anderson You have the causality backwards. Males form tribes so that they can control a breeding population of women. Males who fail to do so will be conquered and their genes displaced, so violent conflict is unavoidable. These breeding populations will produce survival behaviors based on their genetic inclinations and their environment. These behaviors will be prioritized, or valued differently in each population, thus distinct value systems emerge (say monogamy vs polygamy for example). These distinct survival strategies are often incommensurate, and thus conflict is the result of their proximity. Some values are the result of “black swan events” which cannot be predicted or are multi generational processes which have catastrophic results. Pre-literate peoples communicated these lessons via myth, and sacralized (made static) those values as God given commandments. So, religions don’t cause war, competing survival strategies cause war. Religion is the result of a value system (survival strategy), not the cause of it.

  • “Politics and religion are different and are extremely hard to mix together”—J

    —“Politics and religion are different and are extremely hard to mix together”—James Portocarrero

    Judaism and islam do it. The church was too weak to do it. Chinese never had the problem.

    WHY:

    homogeneity = reason. Heterogeneity = Religion.

    THAT’S THE REASON

    The problem is heterogeneity (diversity).

    Religion = Stagnation to create homogeneity that doesn’t exist.

    Law = Adaptation to change in homogeneity that does exist.

    REALLY. THAT’S IT.

    There is a reason for ‘demand’ for religion

    There is a reason for ‘demand’ for socialization.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 08:13:00 UTC

  • “Look at the difference between Buddha and Marcus Aurelius: Buddha, sitting, wit

    —“Look at the difference between Buddha and Marcus Aurelius: Buddha, sitting, with his eyes closed, mind closed to outside stimuli and the world. Juxtapose Marcus Aurelius, slaughtering barbarians by the hundreds of thousands, engaged with the world, changing it for the better.”— Vincenzo LaSala

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 10:28:00 UTC

  • “WHAT WOULD VLAD DO?” —“It’s time to stop asking what Jesus would do and start

    “WHAT WOULD VLAD DO?”

    —“It’s time to stop asking what Jesus would do and start asking what Vlad would do.”— James Santagata

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 14:57:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996041918701359105

  • —“You Are Wrong About Gods”–

    I’m not wrong about gods at all. The only question is whether it’s possible for not-quite-humans to function without an imaginary pack leader acting as a unit of measurement. I mean, women demonstrate NAXALT, and men demonstrate INTENTIONALITY, and by both demonstrations we can identify the not-yet-human, not yet possessing agency, and therefore not yet capable of sovereignty. Now, I know why the weak mind needs such lies. But the question is, can we train the weak mind to possess sufficient agency that it does not need these lies. It should be possible for many.

  • —“You Are Wrong About Gods”–

    I’m not wrong about gods at all. The only question is whether it’s possible for not-quite-humans to function without an imaginary pack leader acting as a unit of measurement. I mean, women demonstrate NAXALT, and men demonstrate INTENTIONALITY, and by both demonstrations we can identify the not-yet-human, not yet possessing agency, and therefore not yet capable of sovereignty. Now, I know why the weak mind needs such lies. But the question is, can we train the weak mind to possess sufficient agency that it does not need these lies. It should be possible for many.

  • by Bill Joslin 1 – God exists through the belief of humans and can be measured b

    by Bill Joslin

    1 – God exists through the belief of humans and can be measured by the actions of believers.

    2 – We create God and make God real through our actions.

    3 – We can testify to this truthfully.

    Opposed to:

    1 – God create everything, everything indicates God’s existence.

    The later equates to a metaphysical lie.

    So, if you can have your God without lies.

    Why lie?

    To secure a monopoly on the authority of truth over reality itself.

    To secure opportunity via theft

    No more lies

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-13 11:28:00 UTC

  • “YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT GODS”– I’m not wrong about gods at all. The only question

    —“YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT GODS”–

    I’m not wrong about gods at all. The only question is whether it’s possible for not-quite-humans to function without an imaginary pack leader acting as a unit of measurement.

    I mean, women demonstrate NAXALT, and men demonstrate INTENTIONALITY, and by both demonstrations we can identify the not-yet-human, not yet possessing agency, and therefore not yet capable of sovereignty.

    Now, I know why the weak mind needs such lies. But the question is, can we train the weak mind to possess sufficient agency that it does not need these lies.

    It should be possible for many.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-13 09:44:00 UTC